Environmental Justice:
The View from Seattle

Interviews with African American leaders in Seattle show that a broad conception of environmental issues is required to bring together those concerned with both the environment and social justice

By Lisa A. Moulds and Debra J. Salazar

During the late 1970s, residents of the working-class Love Canal community fought to get compensation for the homes they had purchased next to a toxic waste dump. Community members discovered that dioxin levels in their homes were dangerously high, but the local government refused to recognize the association between the dump and sick children. They fought a long and ultimately successful battle to have the federal government buy their homes so they could afford to leave Love Canal. Similarly, during the early 1980s, residents of predominately African American Warren County, North Carolina, fought the location of a toxic waste facility in their community, arguing that they were already overburdened with polluting facilities. Farm workers, long exempt from most labor legislation, have waged a long and frustrating campaign to protect themselves and their families from agricultural pesticides.
These are just a few examples of battles that have taken place all over the country as communities of color and white, working class communities have mobilized to address environmental problems. These efforts have given impetus to an environmental justice movement that has framed environmental inequities as yet another instance of social injustice and institutionalized racism. Proponents of environmental justice have argued that a person's social class, race, or ethnicity is often a key determinant of the quality of their environment. In doing so, they have focused public attention on the relation between social justice and environment.
Because of widespread concern over environmental and social justice issues, the environmental justice movement represents an important opportunity for progressive politics in the United States. The extent to which this opportunity will be realized depends, in part, on how the movement addresses the potential for conflict between communities of color and white communities, as well as between environmental justice activists and those involved in the mainstream of the environmental movement. There has been considerable friction between environmental justice activists and mainstream environmentalists, and race long has been a barrier to the development of a broad-based progressive politics in the United States.
During 1992, we attempted to gain insight on the factors needed to build broad, environmental justice coalitions by interviewing 26 African American community activists in Seattle. These activists had not yet become involved with environmental issues, and we wanted to know how they would conceive these problems in the context of their own political work. Based on the interviews and on our observation of the development of the environmental justice movement, we identified two issues central to the future of environmental justice organizing: people's conceptions of environment; and their beliefs about how environmental hazards are distributed.

Redefining 'Environment'
A broad definition of environment is a key element of environmental justice. Thus, interviewees were asked to offer their own definitions of environment. Nearly half defined environment in terms of pollution. A typical response was, "how we handle waste, how we respond to our land, waters, and to our air." Responses of this sort are consistent with the agenda of mainstream environmental organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund.

But the other half of our interviewees offered definitions that were decidedly inconsistent with that agenda. A common refrain in the environmental justice movement is the statement that the environment is "where we live, work, and play." The Mothers of East Los Angeles (MELA), renowned for their successful fight against a toxic waste incinerator, originally organized to fight the construction of a state prison in their neighborhood. Their accounts of their efforts make no distinction between the two battles; both were perceived as efforts to protect the environment of their families and community.
Many of the activists we interviewed shared that perspective, arguing that the environment is "where you live" rather than exclusively "having to do with mountains É rivers, and pollution." "When I look at environment, I consider the environment that surrounds youÉ I mean what good is there to have clean air and clean water if I'm afraid to come out of the house to get it? A safe environment in schools, in jobs, and in our communities contributes to a healthy environment."
When asked to provide examples of environmental problems in their community, activists noted such problems as gentrification, drugs, and infant mortality. One respondent noted, "The gentrification issue is very high in the black community. [It] is an environmental issue because they're getting displacedÉ out of the environment that is wanted, and needed, and home. It is environmental because people are stuck in [or displaced into] an environment that is vulnerable to diseases and other environmental problems such as drugs."
Inadequate services including garbage pick up, utilities, and park and street maintenance also were considered environmental problems because these services contribute to clean and safe environments. Inadequate services lead to an unhealthy environment that attracts animal pests and drug dealers.
Notably, none of the interviewees offered a definition of environment that focused exclusively on wilderness or nature. Indeed several used wilderness as a counterpoint for their definitions. Responses most commonly went beyond conventional notions of the environment to focus broadly on the conditions of people's lives. These responses were consistent with the framework of the environmental justice movement even though few of the respondents had heard of the movement at the time of the interviews.
But the breadth of the issues defined as environmental raises questions about the meaningfulness of the concept. If all problems influencing one's surroundings are considered environmental, there may be no issues that should not be part of environmental politics. Further, the mainstream of the environmental movement, with its focus on natural environments, will be unlikely to accept a re-conceptualization of environment that includes drugs and gentrification. This said, for communities of color, there may be little difference between proposals to site a prison or a waste facility in their neighborhoods. Both can be conceived as threats to their environment and similar strategies may be used to fight these threats. Moreover, our respondents who defined environment broadly were much more willing to take on environmental problems than those who defined environment narrowly. The latter were content to leave environmental problems to the environmentalists. Thus the manner in which environment is defined and the political agenda that follows from the definition will circumscribe the political constituency of environmental (justice) organizing.
A second potential obstacle to the creation of a broad-based environmental justice movement involves the relation between race and the distribution of environmental hazards. Nearly all of the activists we interviewed believed that people of color were disproportionately burdened by environmental insults. Most, though they were self-proclaimed environmental novices, had a ready explanation for the phenomenon of disproportionate exposure. As one respondent noted, "It's just like most anything else. When you are powerless, which a lot of people of color areÉ, you live in communities that then become subjected to dumping and to industrial factories that polluteÉI mean they wouldn't build the chemical factories in Beverly HillsÉit just wouldn't happen."
Most respondents assumed the root of the problem was obvious: patterns of discrimination that affected many aspects of the lives of people of color also affected the environments in which they live. Disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards is a direct result of a political economic system that discriminates against people of color. "It's the same old concept, you put throw-away things with throw-away people."
Because racial discrimination limits the economic power of communities of color, they are more vulnerable to siting of hazardous waste facilities and polluting factories. Thus most respondents linked race to class and saw disproportionate exposure as a consequence of the relation between the two.
An intriguing aspect of several responses was the identification of regional variation in the existence of disproportionate exposure. Some interviewees asserted that the phenomenon did not exist in the Northwest, but was associated with extensive residential segregation in the South, Midwest, and East. Others noted the consequences of environmental inequity in Seattle. These respondents invariably defined environment broadly. "From the Central Area, the further south you go, you find poorer sewage and drainage, water standing in the streets, and increased numbers of rats and other vermin. You find absentee landlords with buildings in grave disrepair, leaky roofs, poor lighting, abandoned buildings which could house who knows what."

Environment and Class
One notable aspect of nearly all of the responses was the emphasis placed on class status. Respondents did not believe that environmental injustice was solely a function of race; the less-affluent of all colors were at risk. To date, white communities and communities of color have challenged environmental inequity largely independently of one another. But occasionally these communities have worked in cross-racial coalitions. Based on the responses of the activists we interviewed, there is considerable potential for such a coalition in Seattle. Indeed, during the last several years, there have been several conferences in the Puget Sound region aimed at building such a coalition, as well as several organizing efforts focused on neighborhood issues.

For now, it is clear that environmental justice proponents have re-defined environment, emphasizing a range of urban issues not conventionally associated with the natural environment. Most of our interviewees focused on the human environment and seemed aware that their conceptions might be challenged by environmentalists concerned with natural environments. While this broad definition may alienate mainstream environmentalists, our interviews indicate that it is only when environment is socially defined that environmental issues become important for many people. Interviewees who defined environment broadly were much more likely to support the integration of environmental with social justice issues than were interviewees who defined environment narrowly. This broad definition of environment will be key to future environmental justice organizing.

Lisa Moulds is an instructor of political science and sociology at Western Washington University and Skagit Valley College. Debra Salazar is an associate professor of political science at Western Washington University. The authors report more detailed results of their study in, "Toward an Integrated Politics of Social Justice and Environment: African American Leaders in Seattle," to be published in a forthcoming issue of Society and Natural Resources.

Related Item:
Environmental Justice Resources



[Home] [This Issue's Directory] [WFP Index] [WFP Back Issues] [E-Mail WFP]

Contents on this page were published in the February/March, 1996 edition of the Washington Free Press.
WFP, 1463 E. Republican #178, Seattle, WA -USA, 98112. -- WAfreepress@gmail.com
Copyright © 1996 WFP Collective, Inc.